There are no Angels in Politics

I’m just going to write down some stream-of-consciousness thoughts here.

In almost every party and every level of government we are constantly pinning our hopes on our political representatives – and yet they all seem to disappoint us sooner or later.

We want our team to win. We are so sure that they are the chosen ones and we support them until they remind us that they are human and therefore flawed. And then we look around at the alternatives and try to assess whether we should stick with our team or move on.

You can choose to withdraw from following politics altogether but then you are forfeiting your right and responsibility to vote intelligently. Eventually that hurts you, your family and everyone around you – and it hurts democracy.

And so I think that as we view the current chaos in the Ontario PC Party, we should probably all take a deep breath, consider the alternatives and then make a decision.

The big question for every Ontario citizen is, are you happy with the way the Ontario Liberals have been running this province for the past 15 years? Or are you ready for a change?

If the latter then try to decide which party would have the best chance of defeating the Liberals (i.e. that most closely aligns with your own views). Then lock in and do your best to make that happen!

 

Related links:

NP View: After a disaster, Ontario Conservatives are doing things right: “Trust the members to choose, and then let Ontarians decide if they chose right.”

EDITORIAL: Anyone but Wynne a win for Ontario. (Toronto Sun) – “For Ontario voters in general, any of the four represent real and desperately needed change.”

And more “fallen angels”:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Democracy, Economy, Ontario election, Ontario Government, Provincial Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to There are no Angels in Politics

  1. Anne in swON says:

    With Brown out of the running I find it much easier to vote PC in the hopes of finally ousting Wynne and her Libs. I am aware that Caroline Mulroney is a very qualified candidate to run as an MPP but I would prefer that she not vie for the leadership. That whole family seems just a little too close for comfort with the Trudeaus. I’d like to see someone with a different take on the current PC platform as leader. Ontario simply cannot afford to continue on the same ruinous fiscal path.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Yes well let’s see who all ends up running. On the plus side, a leadership race would shift a lot of media attention away from the problems of the party and encourage everyone to start looking forward. And free media is a good thing.

      Like

    • Greg says:

      Humans struggled for centuries to get rid of monarchies, and develop democracies, eventually succeeding in modern western civilization. Now we seem to have this fascination with family dynasties again. No more Kennedy’s, Bush’s, Clinton’s, Trudeau’s or Mulroney’s please.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Actually I am okay with the Mulroneys close ties in the sense they are not just close to Trudeau but also Trump. If they can act as a go between to ensure NAFTA survives I am okay with that. Still I agree she is probably not the best choice, although better than Doug Ford, but I think Elliott would be a better choice than her. She should run as an MPP first and once she has had some experience than we can judge better if she is the right or wrong person to lead.

      Like

  2. Liz J says:

    Good post Joanne.

    A shorter leadership race means more exposure and less time for people to forget the platform.
    The media and the unions will have less time to be a huge factor in the election.
    I have no problem supporting whoever is chosen either but we to need not only consider the best person for the job but the one who can take down the worst government in our history.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      In saying more exposure I’m thinking people will be paying attention because of the upheaval. Let’s hope it works it works that way anyway. It’s sure a tralblazer!

      Like

    • joannebly says:

      Thanks Liz. Yes it’s going to be a challenge but I have confidence that it will all work out. Everyone must work towards ridding Ontario of this horrible government.

      Like

  3. Miles Lunn says:

    No doubt things aren’t looking too good for the PCs at the moment, but to most downsides there is an upside so here are a few I could think of.

    1. Connect better with women – Polls showed Brown had a big lead amongst male voters but was struggling with female voters so if we choose right I think we can improve here.
    2. Attack ads – Liberals and NDP had all their attack ads lined up, now they have to start from scratch so we have thrown them off.
    3. Focus on convention not budget – The election budget will have lots of goodies and so the less attention that gets the better.

    Lets remember Wynne still remains deeply unpopular so I am actually less worried about her getting re-elected and more worried about the NDP winning, shades of Alberta 2015 where you had a tired PC government and a Wildrose Party in chaos so NDP win. I still think an NDP win is very unlikely, but I think that is where we need to keep a watchful eye over.

    Like

  4. Liz J says:

    Even if we manage to reduce Wynne to a small minority it might help…but there’s always the NDP factor in that scenario.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      At least with a minority, we can avoid four years, although if the NDP wins it, they might go onto a majority next time. PC minority though could work in our favour like it did with Harper. They will show what they have and will blunt the attacks in the future they have an extreme agenda.

      Like

  5. Miles Lunn says:

    Mainstreet out with a poll on three potential candidates.

    Caroline Mulroney – The highest of the three and helps the Tories quite a bit amongst women (I believe Elliott would too) and even though undecided increase, Tory and NDP support goes up slightly while Liberal drops.

    Rod Phillips – Is ahead, but a very high undecided due to the fact he is not well known many he has lots of potential to do well, but also risks too.

    Doug Ford – Has the lowest undecided, but also not surprisingly the most polarizing. Still has a 10 point lead over the Liberals (I think this more says just how awful Wynne is). So he could win a general election, but I think choosing him is taking a big gamble which we shouldn’t do.

    Of those three, my first choice would probably be Rod Phillips, but Mulroney is good, I just more worry about her being a rookie candidate. I am not a big fan of dynasties, although to be fair she is far more accomplished than Justin Trudeau is.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Miles, do you know if anyone has heard from Christine Elliott?

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Not really, but I am really hoping she does run. The two polls that showed her name showed she topped them. Her only difficulty is finding a seat as Whitby already has a PC MPP, neighbouring Ajax has a star candidate. Perhaps Oshawa or Durham would be good ones, especially Durham as I expect us to easily take that one (Oshawa since we face the NDP might be a bit tougher). I am really hoping this thing starts to smooth out very soon.

        To make matters worse Ford has said he won’t run for mayor so looks like he will be a candidate even if he loses. I guess since there is another candidate in Etobicoke North its possible he could lose the nomination, but he is the type of troublemaker I would rather not have in caucus. Someone should speak to him and let him know he is doing more harm than good, but skeptical he will listen.

        Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        I’ve heard that it would be difficult for Christine to mount a good ground game on such short notice since she’s been out of politics for a while. We know nothing about either Mulroney’s or Phillips’ policy positions yet so I’d rather wait and see. I’d like to see Erin O’Toole take a shot at it. He has great name recognition and we know his policy positions.

        Like

  6. Liz J says:

    Well, they’re calling for money, I just got a call asking me to donate a mere $200 bucks….I said they’d have to settle for just my vote this time.

    Like

  7. Liz J says:

    Does anyone know how long our PM has been a feminist? What exactly does that entail for a man? Was it even a word when he was growing up? I have to say I was not familiar with it and I’ve been around a while. It sure is something for politicians to grab onto but in the present climate is it for cover or votes or both?
    I think the silence will be deafening from all males in politics for the unforeseen future. Will there be more resignations to get ahead of the accusation game that’s going on?

    I wonder if the talked about “rot” in the PC enclave is about a broad spectrum of issues or is there rampant “misconduct” and Brown was the first to be fingered?

    Vic Fedeli has taken on a big task that might require more than a mop and a bottle of Mr Clean.
    I wish him luck and godspeed.

    Like

  8. Liz J says:

    It’s official, Oh Canada has been updated…we are all in command now, not just our sons!
    The original version was in French and it has never changed. I guess we can sing it how we wish in a crowd, no penalty will be meted out!

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Sorry, Libs, I won’t even try your new version. I have enough confidence in myself as a woman that I don’t need anyone putting words in my mouth to make me feel included. I’ll continue to sing it the way I’ve always sung it. Get stuffed!

      Like

  9. gabbyinqc says:

    “We want our team to win. We are so sure that they are the chosen ones and we support them until they remind us that they are human and therefore flawed.”
    Wise words, Joanne — and good post.

    It is disconcerting to read some commenters elsewhere that some voters turned against Mr. Harper because he had not managed to get rid of one of their pet projects, like getting rid of the CBC (defund? close it down? revoke its license? — an unrealistic project, IMO).

    In these days of virulent polarization, those of us who consider ourselves saner than our opponents have to put a little of the proverbial water in our wine — and our whine. Let’s face it, trying to reopen some controversial issues does not do small c conservatives any good, primarily because our communication skills are usually surpassed by our opponents. We are usually portrayed — unfairly, but still to our detriment — as backward rather than forward-looking.

    Case in point: changing the lyrics of the national anthem. Do you remember how the Harper government quickly backed out of the proposed change (part of the 2010 Throne Speech)? https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/harper-gov-t-says-canadian-anthem-lyrics-won-t-change-1.489451
    Rather than trying to sell the idea or giving a reasonable rationale for doing so, the government quickly backtracked because of negative public reaction. Now, however, the change is being hailed as forward-looking, it’s about time, yada yada, with Conservative senators being as ‘knuckle draggers’ for opposing the change. Should Conservative senators not have reminded the public & the other senators that then-PM Harper’s government had tried to do the very same thing, i.e. that it was a Harper government initiative? Instead, we get this headline in iPolitics: “Conservative senators boycotted O Canada lyrics vote”.

    For the record, I don’t believe the change was necessary, as I don’t consider “in all thy sons command” sexist, just as “mankind”, “history” and other words now deemed offensive by the radical left are not offensive either. But any proposal, be it a change or the status quo position, has to be clearly explained and sold to the public

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Fully agree on how the Conservatives should go forward. The question we need to ask is, is it so important to elect a leader who supports your pet idea that you are willing to lose an election over or is getting rid of the Liberals more important even if the Tories aren’t perfect. Elections are never about choosing a perfect leader and party, that doesn’t happen, rather it is about choosing the best option available. As much as people may hate this, Canada has more people on the left than right and as long as that remains the case we will be limited in what we can do. The success of the right in the US doesn’t necessarily mean it will work north of the border as on many issues be it gun control or health care, your median Canadian and median American voter are quite far apart. Actually each country is unique in its political culture so one always has to be careful when trying to copy what worked in any foreign country as often what works in one politically doesn’t in another.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        “…so one always has to be careful when trying to copy what worked in any foreign country as often what works in one politically doesn’t in another.”

        Now apply that to different political parties. The anthem change is one such example. It succeeded because the Trudeau government appealed to “feelings”. What would have happened had it not been an idea pushed forward by a dying man? If that wasn’t a “pet idea” then I don’t know what is.

        Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Agreed — although that doesn’t mean one must abandon one’s basic principles and moral compass. I still remain opposed to SSM, to abortion on demand, to legalization of pot and all other drugs. As a matter of fact, I think capital punishment is warranted in special cases. In regards to immigration, as an immigrant myself, I favour it but within well defined parameters, with prospective immigrants being contributors to this welcoming country AND being willing to integrate into Canadian society. If all prospective immigrants want is to continue fighting the same battles they left behind but in a Canadian setting, I say stay in your own battlefield. I believe in people advancing based on their own merits, not based on their gender, skin colour, creed, historically disadvantaged groups, etc. A hand up rather than a handout sounds good to me. And this vast country needs to utilize & capitalize on the bountiful natural resources it is blessed with, while being mindful of generations to come.

        However, as you’ve often argued, the Canadian public — generally speaking — leans left, so some of those small c conservative principles (at least, that’s how I think of them) I listed above are currently no-go zones. Maybe eventually the pendulum will swing back … but i’m not holding my breath. Should people stop talking about those issues? No .. but it must be done rationally and with reams of supporting evidence, exercising the art of subtle persuasion rather than a sledgehammer approach.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Fair enough. I think on social policies, like SSM, abortion, or marijuana public opinion is unlikely to change, but on economic policies we tend to go in cycles so that will probably swing back. On immigration, I think a lot will depend on outcomes and results whether people continue to support high levels or not. If it works well they will continue to do so, but if there are problems they won’t. In terms of affirmative action, I am not a fan either although certainly it never hurts to ask firms to look to get rid of any systemic barriers if they exist but at the same time, quotas or targets seems like a bad idea except as a last resort. The only place where affirmative action has actually worked fairly well is Malaysia (I’ve been there and its a lot more developed than most of its neighbours). There most of the wealth was held by the Chinese population who are 25% so after anti-Chinese riots in 1969 they brought in affirmative action for the 60% Malays and the peace between the two seems to have been okay. But again very different country and I don’t think really applicable to Canada.

          Like

    • gabbyinqc says:

      Correction: 4th paragraph line “Conservative senators being as ‘knuckle draggers’” should be “Conservative senators being portrayed as ‘knuckle draggers’

      Like

    • joannebly says:

      “Wise words, Joanne — and good post”

      Thanks Gabby. Much appreciated.

      Like

  10. Miles Lunn says:

    Chris Selley at the National Post is claiming Christine Elliott is in. Please by God, let this be true. If she is in, we can put this mess behind and win big. Hopefully Doug Ford being close with the family will bow out. Caroline Mulroney may have a lot of potential, but I think her being a cabinet minister in a Christine Elliott government is probably better and then after getting some experience can run in the future.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      If all rumours are true, which is a big if, looks like it will be Elliott, Ford, Mulroney and Phillips. If I still lived in Ontario, I would rank the following way:

      1. Christine Elliott
      2. Rod Phillips
      3. Caroline Mulroney
      4. Doug Ford

      Like

    • joannebly says:

      This news about Christine Elliott would be fantastic! I think that if she and Caroline Mulroney were both running then Doug Ford’s campaign would be a sideshow attraction to the main event. 😉

      Like

  11. Greg says:

    I was just in the lunchroom at work and there is a TV on all the time in it, usually on CTV news. I happened to hear them talking about the Dow and TSX, the Dow up and TSX down. Then they talked about TSX performance in general lately. It seems there are 106 stock exchanges in the world, and year to date the TSX is 102nd, just behind Botswana. I can’t imagine what countries are worse than us. Does North Korea have a stock exchange? Probably Zimbabwe and Venezuela as well. Trudeau’s policies are turning us into the 3rd world.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I am in the investment sector and in 2017 we did have one of the worst stock growths of any developed country. That being said Norway which has a strong energy sector has similarly sluggish growth so I found any country with a large energy sector generally fared poorly. While I would like to think the more left wing politics of Trudeau are the reason, from past experience, government of the day tends to have little impact on the stock market. Only the days before and after an election are you likely to see a strong swing and usually that gets corrected quickly. Much of our economic growth is due to high personal debt levels and the real estate bubble, both which are not sustainable in the long run while in Alberta their growth was only strong as they are rebounding from a massive crash, but still worse off then before going in.

      Like

      • Greg says:

        I agree there is lots of factors. I think the amount of regulation we have compared to recent events in the US, and the deliberate suppression of our oil and gas aren’t helping either. I would imagine if our oil wasn’t discounted by almost 50% we’d be doing better. $35 per barrel compared to the world price of $65, all because there’s no way to get it to an ocean.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Agreed government policies aren’t helping that’s for sure. Just not sure how much stock investors put into politics of the day. Short term investors do, but long term tend to figure things will even out over the long term of the political cycle so they look more at the balance sheets and growth potential of each firm. But certainly on taxes and regulation we are not a very welcoming environment for business.

          Like

  12. Anne in swON says:

    There are indications that the Brown/Dykstra saga may have been a mere blip in the big picture as stated in the Toronto Sun: “But a funny little thing has happened in just the past couple of days. The narrative has shifted. The Ontario PCs are no longer backwards looking, sniping about internal dynamics and past missteps. They’re now looking ahead, gearing up for the leadership race.”

    “The more candidates, the freer the debate and the more excitement generated, the greater the chances the PCs have of re-framing the debate in their favour. They now control the narrative. From here on in until March 10, when the new leader is announced, all eyes will be on them.”

    http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/furey-after-a-rough-week-ontario-pcs-turn-a-page-with-whirlwind-leadership-race

    Like

  13. Liz J says:

    After the race, more like a sprint, lets hope whoever wins is ready to go after the real problem as opposed to getting thrown off message by the media hacks.
    Wynne is promising the moon and stars , in our faces with prime time TV ads, we need to ask where the funds are coming from and how she intends to keep afloat when companies are leaving and small businesses are shutting down.
    With all the money being spent our health care is a mess and education, well, lets say there’s a lot of indoctrination going on, the state is deciding for the parents, a model we expect to see in a communistic state.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      According to the article, candidates must follow party policy but do not have to follow every aspect of Brown’s platform. Both Elliot and Ford have indicated that they oppose the carbon tax and that appeals to the grass roots. I can imagine there’ll be some picking and choosing as individuals attempt to distinguish themselves from one another.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        I would think they would all come out against the carbon tax.
        With so many candidates we can now expect to hear a lot about splitting the vote scenarios. I hope they don’t get distracted, pulled off message, as they deal with opposition from media and unions. That’s where experience comes in, talk over the din.

        Like

  14. Anne in swON says:

    We knew he had taken a leave of absence(?) pending an investigation into allegations of improper behaviour. How anticlimactic it would be if this is bigwig Liberal about whom we’ve been teased. Surely this may be considered old news at the very least.

    Like

  15. Miles Lunn says:

    It looks like the me too movement has hit every party so no party is totally immune although we seem to have gotten the strongest of it. Since Scheer was speaker at the time thus not really involved and the election is still 625 days, I don’t think the damage will be too strong for us politically at the federal level. Provincially that is a whole different story, but I think a lot will depend on whom we choose as the new leader. I believe either Elliott or Mulroney are quite capable and under both we would do even better than we would have with Brown, but with Doug Ford I fear he could cost us the election or at least make winning a majority difficult. It does look bad on Harper at the moment, but he is not on the ballot and it will take about a decade or so before there will start to be rational discussion on his legacy.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      If you’ve read Mr. Harper’s statement you’ll realize that he was told the complaint had been dropped. Although hindsight is always 20/20, there was nothing at the time to cause him to reject Dykstra from running. Caroline Mulroney would not be near the top of my list. She has no experience holding political office but aspires to the leadership. We’ve already had Trudeau I and II – we don’t need Mulroney I and II. I’ll repeat that the closeness of the Trudeau and Mulroney families is cause for concern. Ontario does not need to be pulled farther to the left in my opinion. We have strayed much to far already from even a centrist position.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        I agree Anne that Stephen Harper can’t be faulted here when the police report was closed at the time and the complainant wasn’t coming forward. It was a different time too. Things weren’t as politically charged as they are now.

        In this environment today you wouldn’t let any candidate with a whiff of scandal run, but that was then, and as you say, hindsight is 20/20.

        Like

        • gabbyinqc says:

          Why am I not surprised that the Rick Dykstra controversy is being connected to Stephen Harper? It’s the usual MSM crap, minimizing liberals’ & so-called progressives’ gaffes & misconduct and magnifying those of conservatives.
          https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/news-of-dykstra-investigation-split-harper-s-inner-circle-sources-say-1.3788832
          Headline: “News of Dykstra investigation split Harper’s inner circle, sources say” …

          Only more than half-way down the article is it acknowledged “…that Harper had no tolerance for excessive partying or sexual misconduct, insisting the decision to keep Dykstra on was based primarily on the termination of the investigation and absence of criminal charges.”

          And then this gem from pollster Nik Nanos:
          “… the situation shows the need for “more ethics and values in politics related to what is appropriate behaviour and what is not appropriate behaviour.”
          Talk about stating the obvious!

          Like

          • Liz J says:

            Nik Nanos, the pollsters’ pollster in his own mind. He got it right once and has been high on himself ever since. I think now he’s branching out, offering his opinions, hopefully they are free. Suffice to say I am not a fan.

            Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I actually am not concerned if the closeness as it a personal vs. political level. The Clintons and Bushes get along quite well but governed quite differently. Living here in BC, the NDP in the 90s and it seems now had bad relations with the feds whereas the BC Liberals under Gordon Campbell (Chretien, Martin, and Harper) and Christy Clark (Harper and Trudeau) had good relations with the feds and I think our province benefited from it. Also Mulroney family is close with Trump so I think her father can be an asset in saving NAFTA.

        As for political positioning of the party, I am clearly from the Progressive Conservative rather than Reform side so I am okay if the party wants to be more centrist. I also think politically, we really have no choice, otherwise slightly right of centre is where we should be but not Liberal lite. We should be more like the British Tories rather than GOP and likewise more like the Alberta PCs as opposed to Wildrose Party and PCs as opposed to Reform Party. The Tories have a solid base in the low 30s who will vote for them no matter what, but we need to get over 40% to win a majority so we need to appeal to around 10% who are Blue Liberals/Red Tories. With Wynne tacking left there is lots of room to pick those up. Otherwise we should still favour tax cuts, and some modest spending cuts but no major frontline service cuts. On the carbon tax, as long as Trudeau is PM we really have no choice so why not use the extra revenue to cut taxes instead of having it wasted on the cap and trade. Only if the Tories get a majority in 2019 will it be possible to scrap it and I wouldn’t count on that happening. I think a Tory minority is quite plausible, but majority is fairly tough when you do the math as in Atlantic Canada I cannot see us winning more than 5-7 seats, Quebec will be a challenge to hold what we have, we can maybe win half the seats in Ontario (but need over 2/3 to compensate for weakness east of the Ottawa River), should dominate the Prairies but fall short in a few urban ridings, possible gains in BC, but I would say with the NDP, Liberals, and Greens all having their pockets of strength 20 seats is probably our ceiling here on the West Coast. So that means 150 seats is probably our ceiling which is 20 seats shy of a majority and once legislation for a carbon tax is passed we need a majority to repeal it. So its about choosing your battles wisely. On social issues like abortion or gay marriage, those are decided by the feds so best to stay out of them. On sex education, probably best to leave it alone and instead have the curriculum in general reviewed every 5 years in which changes in every course can be made based on our changing world.

        Like

  16. Liz J says:

    Thing is we do not know Caroline Mulroney yet beyond her credentials and they are very good compared to the person leading the country right now. I kind of suspect she is her own person as the saying goes.
    I’m prepared to hear them all out and hope we make the best choice to clear out the real rot at Queen’s Park, the government of Kathleen Wynne.

    Like

  17. joannebly says:

    For better or for worse Rod Phillips is now endorsing Caroline Mulroney. So now the race seems to be between Mulroney, Ford and Ellott.

    Like

  18. Miles Lunn says:

    Since it looks like a race between Elliott, Ford, and Mulroney, here are my thoughts:

    Christine Elliott:

    Likelihood of Winning PC Leadership: I believe she has a very good chance although far from certain. Her main goal is simply to avoid coming in third on the first ballot or a distant second. As long as she comes in a decent second place, I believe she will win it as I believe the majority of both Ford and Mulroney supporters will put her as their second choice.

    General Election: Provided she doesn’t say or do anything stupid, I believe under Christine Elliott we can win an even bigger majority than we could have under Brown. She is well liked and compassionate and I believe can help us gain amongst female voters which Brown struggled with.

    My Thoughts: She would likely be my first choice as she is experienced, moderate, compassionate, and can unite the party to defeat Wynne.

    Doug Ford:

    Likelihood of winning PC Leadership: A lot will depend on how many new members he can sign up. He has a strong motivated base, but not too popular amongst establishment so I think a longer race would favour him, but shorter makes it more difficult. He needs to get at least 40% if not 45% on the first ballot as he won’t get a lot of second choices so if he doesn’t do well in first ballot won’t win it.

    General Election: A very risky candidate who could do well, but has the real risk of costing us another easily winneable election. Unlike the other two, there is plenty of material to launch attack ads against him and if I were in the Liberal war room making attack ads, he would be by far the easiest. Also very polarizing, does well amongst base, but unpopular amongst those outside the base and with Wynne’s low approval rating we need someone with a positive one, not negative which he has. Still his base is motivated and he is good at tapping into people’s angers so could win if there is enough anger out there and turnout is low, but the risks of losing are far greater with him than others and the odds of winning a majority are under 50% with Ford while over with the other two.

    My Thoughts: I don’t particularly like him myself. It’s not just about where he stands on the spectrum, I find him too much of a bully and in politics we need someone who can bring people together not plays up wedge politics. Also he has been caught lying numerous times and someone who lies frequently, how can we trust them to follow their promises. Also seems to be a showboat and in politics you want and need people with humility who understand it is a privilege and honour to serve and they are there for us not themselves. While quite different in politics, he seems like Trudeau in how highly he thinks of himself. If he were leader and I still lived in Ontario, I would have to bring nose plugs to the voting booth to pinch my nose when voting.

    Caroline Mulroney:

    Likelihood of winning PC leadership race: Without question she is the establishment favourite and with a short timeline, that bodes well for her. She has more room for growth on the second ballot than Doug Ford but less so than Christine Elliott so I think if she is behind Christine Elliott on first ballot then she is finished, if behind Doug Ford it depends on distance. A close second and she will likely win, but a distant second and likely lose. I think amongst Elliott’s supporters, 60-70% will go over to Mulroney for second choice, but 30-40% will go to Doug Ford.

    General Election: A bit of a gamble as no idea how well she does in debate, but with lots of strong people around her, I tend to think she would do quite well. Certainly being a moderate and a female, I believe she has great potential to pick up many dissatisfied Liberals more so than Brown. Her biggest risk is if we get an NDP surge as I cannot see the Liberals beating her, but the NDP might have an opening, but probably too far behind in the polls to catch her, although choosing her for good or ill probably increases the odds of the Liberals falling to third and NDP forming the official opposition. The reason I think she would be good for the NDP is they can play the anti-establishment card against her whereas the Liberals don’t have this option.

    My Thoughts: I like her and would have no trouble supporting her, but I think she is jumping in a bit too soon. If chosen I will off course cheer for her in the general election, but probably would have been better to serve as an MPP in a PC government and then run as leader in a future election after acquiring some experience. That being said unlike Trudeau, she does have an impressive resume so she has at least made it on her own unlike Trudeau who other than his surname has a pretty unimpressive resume.

    Like

  19. Liz J says:

    We need to listen to them all then make our choice, get behind that person and get on with the most important action for this province in decades, dump the present government.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I agree getting rid of Wynne is the most important and I think choosing Doug Ford is a huge gamble. He might be able to pull it off, but also there is so much ammo for the Liberals to launch attack ads on that I feel the election would be about him and not the Liberal incompetence. Since getting rid of Wynne is the most important job I believe we should play it safe and choose someone who doesn’t have a lot of baggage. That is why Christine Elliott is my first choice followed by Caroline Mulroney.

      Like

  20. Liz J says:

    Quebec and Saskatchewan say no to carbon tax we would be fools to go along with it. It’s another money grab for the government to waste on their own pet projects at our expense. There should be no hesitation on the part of those running for PC leadership to get rid of it.
    It could be the big divider among the three seeking leadership.

    Wonder how much of the booty Wynne collected has gone to advertising her goodies on prime time TV and radio?

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      On the carbon tax, I think when one goes beyond the rhetoric and looks at the big picture I believe scrapping it is a bad idea. Quebec like Ontario is part of the cap and trade and that is allowed, but unlike the Carbon tax it means money gets shifted to California and Quebec whereas carbon tax stays all in Ontario. Saskatchewan may oppose one, but most constitutional lawyers have said the feds are within their right to impose one on the province many its mostly talk, they will still have one.

      For the PCs, I think the problem with scrapping it as then our numbers no longer add up. That means we have to scale back some of our tax cuts or have bigger spending cuts. Our platform was signed off by Kevin Page meaning the Liberals will have a tough time saying the numbers don’t add up whereas we remove this suddenly they can claim that. The reality is until such time as the federal Tories get a majority federally, a carbon tax will be imposed on provinces that don’t have one. So better to make it like BC used to be under the BC Liberals 100% revenue neutral where every cent raised goes to income tax cuts and one cent is spent. In fact the people’s guarantee if you read it closely does not impose one, rather it states it will use the revenue remitted from the federally impose one in the form of tax cuts and I think saying like even Caroline Mulroney is saying that we don’t like the idea but have no choice is probably the best way to go about it.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Although BC’s carbon tax began with the assumption it would be revenue neutral in perpetuity but that is no longer true according to Charles Lammam and Taylor Jackson of the Fraser Institute.

        “Once the pre-existing tax reductions are properly removed from the government’s revenue-neutral calculation, B.C. taxpayers endured a net tax increase of $226 million in 2013/14 and $151 million in 2014/15. Those numbers are based on historical data.

        According to data from the government’s own projections, the carbon tax will result in a cumulative $865 million tax increase on British Columbians between 2013/14 and 2018/19. So much for revenue neutrality.”

        http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/how-b-c-s-formerly-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-turned-into-another-government-cash-grab

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Perhaps, but this can be corrected. Also the Fraser Institute is always an organization I try to avoid quoting just as I avoid the CCPA on the left as both have strong political biased and while I agree with much of the Fraser Institute’s views, I think quoting them makes it easy for our opponents to say we lack credibility. Usually I think a neutral economists who doesn’t have a particular political agenda is the best to quote.

          Like

  21. Anne in swON says:

    I believe I read that Christine Elliot rejects the carbon tax as well. Has anyone else heard that? If that’s the case it would be very difficult for Caroline Mulroney not to go along. So maybe we’ll be able to kiss that tax good-bye. The problem then becomes one of funding the PC platform without that revenue.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      It’s all about stopping Climate Change, whatever else that entails, the big thing is it will cost us money and possibly money for nothing but for governments to make big bucks.
      Nothing else will change. Not even when we have such an expert on the file like McKenna who has called herself the Minister in charge of the weather.

      I happen be closer to the Don Cherry theory on the whole matter, those who believe in it are “Cuckaloos”. However all politicians have to go along with it since the extreme brain washing our children by the likes of gore with his farce called “Inconvenient Truth”.
      The bigger farce that followed with Gore was a Peace Prize from Nobel.
      Sure our climate changes, it has since time began.

      I expect I’m odd person out here too, that’s OK if you don’t hold it against me!

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        You.re not alone, Liz. Anybody who has ever taken even a first-year Geology course knows that climate is always in flux and always will be. Sure, we in the west can do our small part to mitigate any damage that we may cause but it’s not going to do anything of significance to change the climate here or anywhere else.

        Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Caroline Mulroney actually said she is personally opposed to the idea, but since the feds are imposing it we have no choice and I think that is probably the best way to go about it. The loss of revenue is a big problem so best to say that the revenue the feds send us from their carbon tax, we will return to taxpayers in tax cuts so that way we keep the revenue and the blame goes on Trudeau not the Ontario PCs.

      Like

  22. Liz J says:

    Another day another accusation, this time it’s against Steve Paikin…TVO is investigating the allegation.
    I would think it an urgent matter to define just what constitutes sexual assault, sexual harassment, or whatever other descriptive they use.

    I’m really concerned, we all should be concerned, for our sons,brothers, husbands, fathers and all male relatives whose lives can be forever scarred and ruined, even if never proven. With women bringing up stuff that happened years ago, no age group is safe from their belated sensibilities.

    I am disgusted with the whole movement. As the header on this post says “There are no Angels in Politics” all women are not Angels either. In my lifetime I have never seen such loose morals across the board and they’re showing at younger and younger ages.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      The accuser is one Sarah Thomson. Look her up. I’m not sure she’s all there.

      Like

    • gabbyinqc says:

      “I would think it an urgent matter to define just what constitutes sexual assault, sexual harassment, or whatever other descriptive they use.”
      Of course, that would be the logical thing to do. Instead, we have terms like “victim” and “survivor”, of all things, used to refer to those who allegedly were harassed in some way or other. Some of the stories being told mention that the woman in question did not want to hurt her chances at career advancement, so she said & did nothing. A job more important than personal integrity?

      Like

  23. Liz J says:

    I heard the same! It’s to be noted TVO is not suspending him.

    Like

  24. Anne in swON says:

    The carbon tax or whatever the government wants to call it is simply a tax grab – nothing more, nothing less. Some feel-good description of how it’s supposed to help save the world doesn’t belie the fact that there’ll be less money in the taxpayers’ pockets. This scheme is solely to benefit the government coffers. If their plan is to buy carbon credits then it becomes a massive wealth transfer.I resent being lied to and taken for a fool by those in power.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      But how about if income taxes are cut by a greater amount, isn’t that a good thing as we want lower income taxes. Also my understanding is if we don’t introduce one, the feds will do it for us so as long as Trudeau is PM, it is irrelevant what any provincial leader thinks. Now once the Liberals are out of power then perhaps, but until then it’s either cap or trade or a carbon tax. My understanding is if we oppose it, Trudeau will impose one anyways and return the money so its more a matter of who does it and unless the money is hopefully used for tax cuts not more spending. We could try fighting it, but Trudeau has the law on his side so unless we can get the courts to squash it, which I am not so sure about it seems best to just use the funds for tax cuts. Certainly if the Tories win federally in 2019 then it can be scrapped at this point or at least frozen (we don’t want to get back into deficit).

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        I refer you back to this article: http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/how-b-c-s-formerly-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-turned-into-another-government-cash-grab

        What’s to stop the same thing from applying to any “revenue neutral” federally mandated carbon tax? This government needs money and they’ll get it one way or another.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Essentially the feds will impose one and return the money to the province so we use every dollar received to cut taxes. As for the study I try to avoid using ones from groups with an agenda be it the Fraser Institute on the right or CCPA, Broadbent Institute on the left as I find any of those think tanks tend to cherry pick. The reality is BC under the BC Liberals had the lowest corporate tax rate in Canada, lowest tax rate for low and middle income earners while second lowest for high income earners. That being said I get where you don’t like the carbon tax, but my understanding is until the Liberals are defeated federally we don’t have a choice so might as well make the best of what we got.

          Like

  25. Liz J says:

    Please help us somebody, anybody, we are being led by a silly person, a mental midget.

    Trudeau has surely lost it, saying “We like to say “peoplekind’, not mankind, it’s more inclusive. Who is he referring to with “we”?
    I’m sure he’ll be having a problem phrases like “the brotherhood of man” , might drive him over the edge. He seems to be a man hater, wants all references to males obliterated.

    His town hall meetings are becoming gong shows.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      I’m seeing that Trudeau is being ridiculed more and more by global media – and I’m lovin’ it!! 🙂

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Earlier, during a radio talk show in my neck of the woods, Trudeau’s “peoplekind” interruption was discussed, with most callers surprisingly saying it was rude and uncalled for. But of 3 women callers, two defended him as a champion of feminism & women. Sigh …

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          I have sometimes wondered if he is doing this for political tactics. He knows this will enrage the conservative base and someone in the party might say something intolerant so then he can make it about how Liberals are tolerant and Conservatives are not. Since his policies aren’t working, changing to virtue signaling is Trudeau’s best ploy. So we are best to just to stay quiet and let him look like the fool he is. When your opponent is burning down their house, just stand aside and let it burn down.

          Like

          • gabbyinqc says:

            Piers Morgan — not a Canadian Conservative — pointed out just how ridiculous Trudeau is in attempting to change the English language to fit his idea of “diversity and inclusion”.

            In a way I agree with you, to stay out of it and let him demonstrate just what kind of an empty suit — when he’s actually fully clothed — he is.

            But on the other hand, this article makes a compelling argument for really engaging in a fight against one’s opponents (even if it’s in the American context and I’m no fan of President Trump).
            https://townhall.com/columnists/evansayet/2017/07/13/he-fights-n2354580 (via commenter at SDA)

            Like

          • joannebly says:

            Piers Morgan’s statement about Trudeau was on Power Play tonight. Hilarious!!

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            And Piers Morgan is hardly a hard core right winger. Lets remember when on CNN, he was a staunch critic of US gun laws. Never mind it was Alex Jones who wanted Piers Morgan deported from the US.

            Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Mankind is just a short form for humankind, there is not such word as person kind. As for political correctness, why not go after real discrimination where it exists rather than every slight. Its attitudes like Trudeau’s that do create a backlash to actually lead to an intolerant leader winning.

      Like

  26. Liz J says:

    I’m starting to think he’s gone too far on this feminist kick and he’s on his way to being a laughing stock across the globe.
    There’s got to be something behind all this nonsense coming from him, it’s not making sense, it’s not even rational.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ruth says:

      yes, and when the world is laughing at you, time to step down. The Liberals need a new leader

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Should have chosen Marc Garneau. I think even though probably none of us would have voted for him, he would have been a lot better than Trudeau. He was someone who actually accomplished something in life rather than running on his famous last name. And probably wouldn’t be messing up in all the areas Trudeau is.

        Like

        • joannebly says:

          We warned them that Justin just wasn’t ready.

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I actually recall Trudeau didn’t even want to run, but the party ran some polls showing the party lead behind in the lead while in third place under other names thus when they begged him to jump in, he did. Off course I’ve found leadership polls tend to be based more on name recognition than actual skills.

            Like

  27. Liz J says:

    The Bible tells us God created man in his image so have to wonder if Trudeau has a problem with that. Would he want his kids reading that since in his discombobulated mind that is no inclusive.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      The woman he interrupted is a member of the World Mission Society Church of God, which is widely described as a feminist cult whose adherents believe in God the Father and God the Mother. The “church” originated in South Korea in 1964 under the leadership of a man who believed that he was the Holy Spirit. Trudeau’s response truly boggles the mind. Does he really believe what he said or was he being a patronizing prat?

      Like

  28. Miles Lunn says:

    Here is a similar one by a left wing professor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAxUDMy1oUw . My view is Trudeau is trying to be super politically correct as a bait tactic hoping he can get someone in the Conservatives to say something intolerant. But this might be a case of him going too far. I think though his comparison of ISIS fighters returning to Italian immigrants was downright insulting. I am a strong opponent of bigotry towards Muslims, but ISIS is a terrorist organization. Opposing ISIS doesn’t make someone Islamophobic anymore than opposing the IRA makes someone anti-Irish. As someone who dislikes Donald Trump strongly, I feel Trudeau is just trying to provoke a backlash which we don’t need. By all means be tolerant, but I think using common sense which most of us have makes most sense. That being said he probably wants a distraction to his bad policies so best to focus on where he is really fumbling.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      I wouldn’t give Trudeau that much credit Miles. He’s not baiting, he’s just not that clever. I’ve never heard such inane claptrap from any Prime Minister.

      The backlash he is getting is making him look like a fool and it has gone global. When your Prime Minister becomes a laughing stock it’s not about his policies, it’s what comes out of his jib.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I agree he is not that clever, but Gerald Butts is and it is Gerald Butts who pulls the strings. Sure Butts didn’t tell him to say that, but I bet Butts is pushing Trudeau to play up the PC card as much as possible. Not that this means it will work out as he was the guy behind McGuinty’s green energy program which is now biting the Ontario Liberals. As mentioned with his comments on Italian immigrants in relation to ISIS fighters he seems to want to have an election on identity politics hoping he can portray the Tories as intolerant. We need to do our job and ensure he doesn’t get that and instead focus on his economically illiterate policies which will hurt the country if not corrected.

        Like

        • Greg says:

          I haven’t seen anything yet so I’m surprised no prominent Italian people or groups have complained about being compared to terrorists? Or they have and I didn’t notice?

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Some have although hasn’t gotten as much attention, here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwHwD58R9cg

            Like

          • gabbyinqc says:

            OK, I’m definitely no fan of Justin Trudeau. But I fail to see where or how he compares Italian immigrants to terrorists. In the YouTube link provided by Miles, Trudeau mentions several waves of immigrants who were not always received with open arms, according to him. As an immigrant myself, I never experienced overt animosity. Granted, I came here as a child, so whatever animosity may have been directed was probably at adults.

            If Trudeau can be faulted for what he said in that YouTube clip, it is not for comparing Italian immigrants to terrorists but rather for not addressing the questioner’s concerns, i.e. properly vetting newcomers from certain countries where ISIS holds sway.

            Like

          • joannebly says:

            Trudeau definitely didn’t address the questioner’s concerns. And then he used it as an opportunity to pivot to trying to shame Canadians again for supposedly harbouring racist views.

            This whole tour was a disaster from my POV. Trudeau is starting to implode and is taking this country down the drain with him.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            GabbyinQC – I think level of animosity depends on where one moved, where they came from, and when. My Grandpa’s brother married a woman of Ukrainian descent in Alberta and their kids were often bullied over their Ukrainian ancestry. Some groups like the Dutch and Scandinavians blended in so well they faced less while others it was timing. Not much discrimination against German-Canadians prior to WWI but spiked once the war broke out and I think for Italian Canadians, the fact Italy was an opponent in WWII played a role. Off course any type of discrimination is wrong.

            Still as Joannebly points out, Trudeau never answered the question. I once saw him at an event in 2006 and I asked him how his youth volunteer program would be funded and he couldn’t give a straight answer so he is not that great on unscripted questions. If he comes to Vancouver, I plan to go and ask some really tough questions. And they will be on fiscal issues (my speciality and his weakness).

            Like

  29. Liz J says:

    Now our avowed feminist Prime Minister is saying he was just joking!
    Nice try Justine but a little too late to be believed, too much time after the fact.

    Like

  30. Liz J says:

    When the Prime Minister of the country can sit in his seat during QP and let other MP’s answer Questions put to him by the Opposition Leader while he signs photos of himself we know how seriously he takes his job.

    Like

  31. Anne in swON says:

    Now Trudeau claims that his ‘peoplekind’ quip was a ‘dumb joke’. Really? Not according to Public Works. Check this out: http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/wrtps/index-eng.html?lang=eng&lettr=indx_catlog_m&page=9TPmSqyzDJDI.html

    Like

  32. Miles Lunn says:

    For those in Ontario, I was wondering whom you think should be the next PC leader. Although I don’t live there anymore so cannot vote, I absolutely believe Christine Elliott is the best choice and hope the party chooses her. I think her big challenge is to make sure she comes in at least second on the first ballot and no one wins the first ballot as I believe she will get the majority of second choices from both Doug Ford or Caroline Mulroney so as long as not eliminated on the first ballot or no one gets over 50% on the first one she has a good shot.

    Like

  33. Anne in swON says:

    My hope is that at least one of the three contenders will follow the advice offered by Christine Van Geyn, the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. She explains quite succinctly why getting rid of “the fatally flawed People’s Guarantee” is necessary. http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/van-geyn-pcs-need-to-dump-the-peoples-guarantee

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Caroline Mulroney is now saying she won’t support a carbon tax either, so that’s the three of them agreeing on that!

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        My concern here is how are they going to pay for the other parts of the platform. Carbon tax may not be liked, but without it will mean either scaling back the tax cuts elsewhere, which I think is a bad idea or spending cuts. I fully support spending cuts but we need to specific what we will cut as the Liberal attack ads will no doubt try to create fearmongering about all kinds of things we won’t do. The important point is if we want to win, we have to ensure our numbers add up. Yes the Liberal ones never do, but we cannot afford to take any chances this election as Wynne absolutely must be defeated.

        Like

  34. Liz J says:

    Nothing is sacred in Canada.
    How much more are we going to give up in the hands of this Trudeau Liberal majority government?

    The whole world will now hear our new gender neutral National Anthem at the Olympics.

    Sadly the whole world is seeing what a lame brain we have representing us. He is a laughing stock providing fodder for comics and talk show hosts around the globe.

    What does all this say about us?

    Like

  35. Liz J says:

    Breaking news..the OPP will not lay any charges in ORNG Air Ambulance “case”…..insufficient evidence to lay any criminal charges. It’s only taken six years.

    We can be sure now our provincial government is pure as the driven snow, well, with one exception, Mr Livingston I presume is the lone black mark.

    Like

  36. Liz J says:

    Is it safe for me to even suggest we investigate the OPP?

    Like

  37. Liz J says:

    When corruption runs deep in a government we have no recourse beyond trusting the electorate pays attention and boots them out at the first opportunity. Right now Wynne is spending huge amounts advertising programs for all and sundry and it’s all about electioneering at our expense.

    Have to think there’s a lot to be said for having a two term limit and Ontario is a prime example for enacting it.

    Like

  38. Liz J says:

    Perhaps the OPP were not the right people to have done this investigation. It has been another giant waste of money all for naught.

    Like

  39. Greg says:

    Is anyone else concerned that Caroline will have her father Brian’s baggage tied to her? The only reason I say this is because the media/liberal/public service union team are going to be desperate beyond even the last 2 elections to maintain power and will pull out any dirty trick they can. Even more so than usual.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      They will probably more go after her being a rich elitist who doesn’t understand the average person. The fact she sends all four of her children to private schools will probably be the big target. Ironically I think if she wins it will be the NDP not Liberals who will benefit. She might turn off some blue collar workers, but at the same time will probably be more appealing to your upper middle class professionals who the PCs have struggled amongst in the past. Ford is the opposite as he appeals to your blue collar workers, but huge turn off amongst upper middle class professionals.

      I have become more and more convinced, the party absolutely needs to choose Christine Elliott. She is by far the best of the three or now four (there is some unknown socon candidate). I no longer live in Ontario, but if I lived there, I would be voting for Christine Elliott as leader. She is the worst nightmare of the three for both Wynne and Howarth.

      Like

  40. Greg says:

    CTV might be constrained out of respect for Ben, but I can see Torstar going on about Airbus and that German guy Hans? forever.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      That will probably happen after she wins as they hate Doug Ford the most and I get the impression the Toronto Star doesn’t want the PCs to win, but realizes there is a good chance they will so they will go easy until the race is over on the more moderate candidates while harder on the one they dislike the most. That being said with print and traditional media declining, I think social media nowadays has more impact on how people vote than traditional does. Politics has changed a lot in the past decade.

      Like

  41. Miles Lunn says:

    I am hoping all three PC candidates do put together a fully costed platform soon. Yes it will take a few weeks, but I fear with the lost revenue from carbon tax, the Liberals will be able to hit us with attack ads that we are going to have massive spending cuts on frontline services so I’ve found rather than say we will eliminate waste, just be up front on what we will cut. We will anger some, but if a service few use, it won’t hurt us much, whereas if unspecified, the Liberals can make up whatever they want to scare people. One solution might be to ensure spending increases are 2% below inflation + economic growth + Population growth so no actual cuts but it will mean a larger surplus available. Another is to end duplication of services where there is overlap and to avoid lay offs (which cost us last time) civil servants impacted will be re-allocated to departments and frontline services we need and the cut in size of civil service will come strictly through attrition (and with the baby boomers starting to retire that won’t be too hard to do).

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      While I am probably alone here, I really think scrapping the carbon tax from the platform was a mistake. As much as it was an annoyance, without it is tougher to do the other things we like and thanks to our massive debt we are in a tight fiscal situation where we have to do things we would rather not. I think the easiest way out is to just to say to those who don’t like it to take the blame out on Justin Trudeau as he is going to impose one anyways and better to use the money to return to taxpayers instead of let him spend on one of his pet projects. Brian Pallister in Manitoba used this argument as he argued the province consulted with their lawyers and they confirmed they were unlikely to win a court challenge and if they do nothing Trudeau would impose it so I think that is the best way forward. We could though promise that if any future government scraps it we will too, otherwise only keep the carbon tax as long as the feds require it. And maybe we could fight them in the court of public opinion, but in the court of law just seems like a waste of money.

      My view as I articulate on my blog is we need some taxes to have the things we want in society so the question is less about taxes being good or bad, but rather what is the optimal level and what types of taxes. The left wants taxes to reduce income inequality, right generally wants stronger economic growth so they favour taxes that do the least to inhibit growth. Generally speaking consumption taxes are less damaging to growth than corporate or income. Ideally a higher HST would be the best way to pay for income and corporate tax cuts, but that would be political suicide so carbon tax is perhaps the next best alternative. Most European countries have lower corporate taxes and many have lower income taxes (and certainly would have lower if they cut their welfare state back to our level) while they pay for their programs through higher sales taxes. Since we don’t have and shouldn’t have as an extensive a welfare state as they do, we wouldn’t have to raise the HST to their levels, but could at least bring the ratios in terms of how much tax revenue comes from each source in line with them but at lower levels.

      On Corporate taxes, I think they were fine until recently, but with others cutting them we may need to lower them a point or two to stay competitive. On income taxes, I support lower rates for all brackets. With the high cost of living, no one living below poverty should be paying income taxes so the minimum threshold needs to be a lot higher than it is now. Giving the middle class a tax cut is stimulus as they will spend most of it in the economy which will create more growth. Cutting taxes for the rich is unpopular so probably should not be in our platform. But our top marginal rate when combined with the federal is 53.53% in Ontario which is the second highest in North America after Nova Scotia and one of the highest on earth (Excluding payroll taxes, only Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Japan are higher while if you include payroll taxes then Finland, Belgium, France, Portugal, and Slovenia as well as Estonia for self employed only are higher) so this rate encourages a brain drain and acts as a deterrent for top talent to move to Ontario. While I am all for more spending cuts, I am a realist and after the 2014 election, I don’t think the public has much stomach for any big spending cuts so for me its more what is the best realistic option as undesirable as it may be.

      Like

  42. gabbyinqc says:

    Was going to tweet this but somehow it lost its immediacy, what with having to look up twitter handles.
    Why am I not surprised the .@PnPCBC #cdnpoli panel – incl. @InklessPW @AaronWherry @markusoff & @KellyCryderman – actually believes Trudeau’s “peoplekind” correction was simply a joke, as JT claims? The real joke? Some MSMers covering for him.

    On another tack … Doug Ford and Caroline Mulroney were both interviewed by Terry Milewski on Power & Politics. Sorry, folks, but neither one was impressive, IMO. But, as I’ve said before, Ontarians’ voice, not mine, should carry weight.

    And on another tack still … Trudeau’s Canada wants to impose its standards on other countries when negotiating trade deals or sales of military equipment yet the same Trudeau is quite content to allow some newcomers to this country to import and implant customs and mores that are incompatible with Canada’s traditional values.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I saw them too and was not impressed either. Saw Christine Elliott on a radio show however and she was by far the most articulate and could give the clearest answers of them all. I feel if we choose either Mulroney but especially Ford we are taking a gamble. Mulroney doesn’t polarize or scare people the way Ford does, but Wynne is a very strong campaigner and going up against her as awful a politician she is, is not easy.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        As some commentators have pointed out, maybe the fact Christine Elliott was rejected as leader — a couple of times? — may work against her. On the other hand, her experience, especially when it comes to debating K Wynne, should be a definite plus in her favour. Caroline Mulroney does not strike me as an effective debater. However, I may be too harsh in making that judgment, based on only one interview. I’m sure her father will give her a few pointers and she may grow into the role.

        Like

    • joannebly says:

      I watched P&P last night as well. Regarding the Peoplekind topic, they all seemed very uncomfortable with the discussion. I’m sure they were worried that if they said anything wrong they’d be taken to task by the PMO. But I do give them credit for even venturing to speak about it and naming Butts. Canadians need to learn who he is and what he’s already done to Ontario. I can personally assure you that there are Trudeau lovers out there who have never heard of Gerald Butts. They more his name is in the news, the better for us. 😉

      Yes the Milewski interviews with Ford and Mulroney were brutal. They need to study those clips and learn from them. And the next time they are asked how they’re going to fight Trudeau on the carbon tax, they should say by helping defeat him in 2019!!

      And Gabby, your third point about Trudeau’s hypocrisy concerning Canadian values is excellent. I never thought about it that way. Good fodder for future tweets. 🙂

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Re: “naming Butts” I was surprised this morning to hear Jonathan Kay, a Trudeau cheerleader, negatively mention Butts’ Nazi attack against those who mocked or criticized the “peoplekind” correction. But still some MSMers, like Susan Delacourt, continue to claim it was meant as a joke. She goes so far as to say Trudeau’s remarks about whipping out the CF-18s to show how big they are as well as Russia’s bellicosity against Ukraine was motivated by their hockey game losses during the Sochi Olympics were also “jokes”!

        I may anger some readers by saying this, but I think Terry Milewski asking the same question more than once is a legitimate interviewing technique. Why? Because both Doug Ford and Caroline Mulroney evaded answering what was a simple question. Are ON voters going to be satisfied hearing Doug Ford repeat “Just watch me!”? Or watch Ms Mulroney blink repeatedly and avert her eyes? However, it’s early in the leadership race, so they have time to recoup.

        As for the twitter fodder, feel free to use it when ever you want; you’re a far more active & effective twitterer than I am.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Butts has always been an idiot and in fact I find him much scarier than Trudeau. He is an arrogant sob who looks down at those with different viewpoints. Yes there were rumours he got along well with Bannon who is very different politically, but I heard that was more over the tax issue. Unlike everyone else in the Trump administration, Bannon wanted to raise taxes on the rich to cut for everyone else so somewhat along the lines of what Trudeau proposed (off course carbon tax, CPP hikes will cancel out the middle class tax cuts of Trudeau which were $0 if you made under 45K only a measly $90 if you made 50K, while $670 if you made between 90K to 200K otherwise top 10%). Bannon wanted to introduce a 44% millionaire’s tax which Trump administration ignored and that is where I think they got along well. But for others he doesn’t deal well with those with different viewpoints. He also is quite left wing too so I was always very worried about him. That being said recent elections suggest we’ve as a country really swung to the left and in fact as I referenced in one blog post we might be one of the most left wing countries on earth today as well the left is at its apex in Canada, its in the tank everywhere else and at record lows. So I hope he doesn’t do the damage to Canada he did to Ontario, but I fear he will.

          Like

  43. ed says:

    Catching up reading all the comments here and in previous posts. Very interesting commentary. I’m an outsider, too, but my choice is Doug Ford. I have not heard him speak until he joined the race. The more I’ve heard him in a number of interviews, the more impressed I’ve become. He comes across as sincere, genuine, and knowledgeable. He seems to be for the average Joe rather than the elite. He sounds like Trump wanting to clean up the waste.

    Never heard of Rod Phillips, why has he decided to join Mulroney? Christine Elliott, my second choice. Positive memories of her late husband. Mulroney, are you kidding!! I’m tired of the old guard and their elite that refuse to fade away. We need change, a complete change of the politics of old replaced by new blood influenced by an expansion of fresh, new ideas. I think Canada has to expand her pools of talent in all fields of endeavour so as to become an increasingly mature country. JMO

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Hi Ed. Good to hear from you.

      I think all Canadians have a vested interest in this leadership race and upcoming Ontario election. If Ontario fails it drags the whole country down. I see hope now in Alberta with Jason Kenney, and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Caroline Mulroney did make a good point last night on P&P that the more conservative provincial governments there are, the more they can band together and oppose Trudeau’s carbon tax.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I agree it would be good for Canada if we had more right of centre governments and I think that is very possible. Alberta and Ontario are the most obvious, but in Atlantic Canada PCs are only slightly behind in both New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador so a good campaign in either could pick one of those two up never mind Nova Scotia doesn’t vote until 2021 and the PCs still choosing a new leader. In Quebec, the Quebec Liberals are more like the BC Liberals than federal, otherwise centre-right and interestingly enough the CAQ is now in the lead so it looks like Quebec will have a centre-right government after October 1st no matter what. True in 2020, Saskatchewan or Manitoba might go NDP as due to austerity (necessary in both cases) things have tightened up a lot in both provinces although the Saskatchewan Party and Manitoba PCs are still slightly ahead. In BC, things aren’t so good for those on the right, but the NDP is still in its honeymoon phase and its a much weaker honeymoon than Trudeau got so I think things can improve. The big danger there is if PR passes this November as this could not only hurt the chances of the BC Liberals winning next time around, it will lead to more pressure for other provinces and the feds to follow thus being bad news all around.

        I am hoping the No side in this referendum points out to the long delays in forming a coalition in Germany (election on September 24th and still don’t have a government and the junior partner SPD may very well quash the deal in March meaning new elections there) while Italy goes to the polls on March 4th and the centre-right alliance is expected to win a plurality but not majority meaning months of negotiations there to form a government so I hope the No side uses those two examples. Also the Dutch and Belgian which took over 200 and 500 days to form a government as well as the Austrian which involves a junior partner with a party that admires the Nazis and New Zealand where one man Winston Peters got to choose the next PM and didn’t even bother to tell his caucus or leaders of either of the two major parties until he announced it publicly.

        In terms of fighting the carbon tax, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan would be the only ones. Its a settled issue in BC and Quebec, Atlantic provinces are mostly Red Tories so doubt they will fight it never mind federal Liberals still have a 15-20 point lead in that region. Manitoba has already said they will not fight it as government lawyers said they would lose the case. The danger in fighting it is it might turn off key swing voters. Alberta and Saskatchewan went solidly Tory in 2015 and the Tories would easily win most of the seats there. In Ontario things are a lot tighter and the Liberals probably have a slight lead federally so while most of our votes will come from federal Tories, we need to win around 5-10% who are Liberals federally to win provincially so we shouldn’t be too anti-Trudeau (as much as I despise him). We should take the approach McGuinty took with Harper as opposed to Wynne with Harper. Ontario usually votes opposite so the reality is history says if the PCs win, then the Liberals likely will in 2019 so understanding this we shouldn’t be too cozy with Trudeau like Wynne is, but not too anti-Trudeau like Wynne was with Harper. We should take the approach McGuinty did as he wasn’t overly cozy with Paul Martin and not too anti-Harper and I think that served us better.

        Like

  44. Liz J says:

    We do need a leader with experience in the political field, both Elliot and Ford have that. Mulroney has good credentials, we need to listen closely and get it right.

    Maybe Ford will be the choice, people have had enough of the smooth talk, time for being forthright, speak in plain language with a strong voice, get the message across. It’s critical we take this province out of the clutches of the worst government in it’s history, maybe even in the entire country.

    Like

  45. Liz J says:

    Caroline Mulroney had really good answer on the experience thing, referred to all the experience Kathleen Wynne has and the mess she has made !

    Like

  46. Liz J says:

    Wonder how Bubba Brown is doing?

    Like

  47. Miles Lunn says:

    I’ve already said why I think the party should choose Christine Elliott. Yes some may say she is a two time loser, but others could argue considering the problems the party had that maybe she should have been chosen before and so now is the time to get it right what we got wrong the last two times. As for the other two here are my thoughts.

    Doug Ford: He is a straight talker, but as someone who witnessed him on city council (I lived in Toronto from 2006-2017, now in Vancouver but still follow Ontario politics closely) there is a wealth of material to use for attack ads against him. As to Ed’s point, I think we need to be careful in reading too much into Trump’s success. We are quite different than the US in our political culture as well as Ontario in terms of demographics (rural vs. urban, diversity, education etc.) is more akin to your liberal coastal states like New York, Massachusetts, California and perhaps Illinois which all went solidly for Clinton. The Midwest states Trump picked up are similar to the 519 area code in Ontario but not the entire province and we already hold the majority of 519 ridings to begin with. I think Ford would be bad news for the NDP as he could have some appeal amongst traditional blue collar workers in the Hamilton-Niagara, Southwestern Ontario, and Northern Ontario while would push the downtown Toronto types towards the Liberals in terms of strategic voting. But amongst the upper middle class suburban types, he would be a huge turn off and could cost us seats like Burlington, Oakville, and Mississauga-Lakeshore which we absolutely must win. Keep in mind, there are two wards for every federal riding and of the 8 ridings Harper won in 2011 in the 416 area code, 6 voted for John Tory so Doug Ford is a huge liability. More importantly if we only get a minority government, I don’t think the Liberals and NDP would gang up to keep Elliott or Mulroney out, but I believe they would gang up to keep Ford out much like the Greens and NDP did in BC.

    Caroline Mulroney: I agree her debating skills are horrible and Kathleen Wynne would eat her for lunch right now. But people said the same thing about Trudeau in June 2015. And you know what he did? During the summer he disappeared from the public eye and spent hours practicing and thus performed surprisingly well in the debates and that helped him first leap frog over the NDP and then the Tories. So if Mulroney wins, my suggestion is to go away until the writ is dropped in early May and spend those two months working on her interview and debating skills much like Trudeau did. People will have low expectations of her so if she does better than expected could work in her favour like it did for Trudeau. I think though Mulroney would unlike Ford be bad news for Wynne but good news for Howarth. Her being more moderate and upscale could help in your upper middle class ridings and win us in places like Don Valley West, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Don Valley North, and Willowdale as many of those are appalled at Wynne’s fiscal ineptness but being mostly university educated they found the more populist tone of the Tories a turn off in the past. On the contrary should could give life to the NDP in Northern Ontario, Southwestern Ontario, and Hamilton-Niagara as they can portray her as an out of touch elitist. The fact she sends her four kids to private school which most Ontarioans cannot afford could hurt her amongst blue collar workers. That being said I think she would be a problem in those areas in terms of hurting our chances in picking up seats like St. Catherines, Niagara Falls, Brantford-Brant, and Cambridge as opposed to holding what we have. Chatham-Kent-Leamington, Sarnia-Lambton, and Sault Ste. Marie are the only ones we hold where she might cause us difficulty. By contrast I think Ford would do quite well there so part of the reason I support Elliott is she can gain in both the areas those two can, but also avoid causing us trouble in the other. Otherwise Mulroney is good news for Howarth bad for Wynne while Ford is bad news for Howarth but good news for Wynne. Elliott is bad news for both of them.

    The other issue is with the carbon tax being removed, I believe it is absolutely essential each candidate cost out their platform and have it signed off by a credible economist. Saying you will cut waste won’t work, you need to be specific. Yes there is lots of waste to cut, but if not specific, the Liberals will fill in the blanks and they will claim it means front line service cuts. So be specific and it can be done. Andrew Saxton in the last Tory leadership race produced a detailed list of the things he would cut to balance the budget and none were overly controversial so if you say what you will cut, you will anger those affected directly, but not anyone else. If you don’t say, you leave everyone worried programs they use will be axed. Another solution is perhaps to extend the period of the tax cuts to 8 years from 4 or to simply say we will cut taxes by however much our surplus lets us without giving the exact size of the tax cuts. Another is to scale back the tax cut as even without the carbon tax we still have room for tax cuts, not just as big. Those three could be options to cover for the carbon tax. And as an added bonus which many haven’t talked about, if the feds impose one, we will have extra revenue. Also with marijuana legalization, we should figure out how much revenue we will get from that as I noticed the People’s guarantee never included this so I think we just might be able to use that. Yes I know the base hates marijuana legalization, but nothing we can do about it, so specifying how we will use the revenue shouldn’t hurt us amongst the base since it will happen no matter what.

    Like

  48. ed says:

    Thank you, Joanne. Happy to have the opportunity to throw in my two cents worth. Happy to see that your blog continues. You provide a forum that helps to inform and enlighten Canadians across this country. A great asset to Canada, you are!! As for us, it has been tough sledding for too many years lately. Hopefully, the light we see near the end of the tunnel is real. Perseverance, yes! 🙂

    Yes, Liz, where the heck is Bubba Brown? I’ve been wondering about him, too, since he’s nowhere to be seen. 🙂 So many great characters on this blog over the years!!

    Miles, wow, you’ve done your homework!! I’ve been out of it for some time but my daily source has been cfra, Ottawa. I like that station.

    As for Ford, he did say he wanted to eliminate the inefficiencies across the board within the government by looking very closely at each of the ministries. Of course, upsetting the apple cart brings out your enemies.

    Mulroney will not have Gerald Butts pulling the strings nor the liberal biased media. And, no Mercer either.

    Personally, I don’t get the Ontario voter. It’s been said when the people have had enough they throw out the governing party. The question is how many years do the people need to recognize when a government has had its day? Maybe, it simply comes down to what people value??

    Random thought: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” For example, is Christine on the same wavelength as her late husband? Similar views? Could be good??

    What about the youth vote and getting it out??

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Ed, listening to CFRA Ottawa is the best for keeping informed, they cover politics at several levels very well on their talk shows.

      Like

    • joannebly says:

      Thanks for the kind words Ed!

      I’m also wondering how Bubba Brown is doing. Haven’t heard from him in ages. I hope he’s ok.

      My hope for the PC leadership race is that all the candidates try to keep the party united. We don’t need any backstabbing – especially this close to an election.

      Like

  49. Liz J says:

    I’m with Lorne Gunter, Trudeau was not joking with his silly “peoplekind” remark, adding “it’s more inclusive” sealed it. It only became a joke after it went viral. His puppeteer Butts’ angry reaction on Twitter was a scathing insult for which he should apologize. If Butts wants to play Mr Fix-it he better find better material.

    Like

  50. Liz J says:

    If Trudeau and company want to turn gaffes into laughs they will need improve the delivery, hone up on the punch lines.

    Like

  51. joannebly says:

    Lorrie Goldstein posted a tweet the other day that he’s recovering from a stroke! Wishing him a speedy and full recovery.

    Like

  52. ed says:

    Correction: Random thought: “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
    The quote above refers to “like father, like son and like mother, like daughter.” — within the family.
    Of course, the Christine example I put earlier does not apply. On the other hand, what about husbands and wives? Having similar views or not?

    Liz, I agree. Even though I live in the Montreal area, I’ve been listening to CFRA for 2 decades. Miss some of the old guys like Lowell Green and what happened to Nick? I thought he was great but changes have been made at the station which came with different perspectives. The concern is the weakening of the Conservative voice. At least, we have Rob Snow who is great with his research and the new morning guy, Bill Carroll, is pretty good.

    Joanne, I agree. Definitely no backstabbing and the candidates keep the focus on party unity, that the welfare of the party comes first. I always worry about shady back room deals.

    Like

  53. Liz J says:

    I have a feeling this leadership race, it is a race in every sense of the word, will be civil.
    The Fords and Elliotts are family friends and I cannot see any nasty stuff hurled at Caroline Mulroney. There’s no time for dirt and it serves no purpose, people see through it, at least we need to hope so!

    Like

  54. Ruth says:

    posted by Patrick Brown on Facebook——-Earlier this week, I said the truth will come out. I have been investigating the anonymous allegations against me and can prove they are false. I will clear my name.
    The first accuser told a story about an incident that she claimed took place in my second floor, upstairs bedroom with the door closed. At the time of the alleged incident, I lived in a ground floor, open concept apartment and there was no second floor bedroom nor a door to any bedroom. THIS STORY IS FALSE. Interestingly, I understand from the first accuser’s Facebook and from people we both know that she was housemates with a CTV reporter.
    The second accuser’s story is also absurdly false. It was she who tried to kiss me, while the woman I was seeing was in another room. I stopped her immediately and offered to drive her home, which I did. There are at least three witnesses, one of whom even spoke to CTV, that refute the details of her allegations. CTV left that out of the story.
    Since the alleged incident, the accuser regularly presented herself as being my supporter and friend, including attending my events (she sat at a supporter table at my speech at the Economic Club of Canada in November 2016), requesting I connect her with my colleagues to help her write certain articles as recently as last year, liking a significant number of my Facebook posts long after she left my office, and, in fact, she even helped out on my leadership campaign. It is now known that this accuser and one of the reporters had a prior relationship. They both worked and socialized together. At no time did she ever act as someone who was anything but a friend and supporter. THIS STORY IS FALSE.
    The #metoo movement is important. I support it. I embrace it. My drive to public service includes creating a safer and more respectful world for women. The #metoo movement is too important to allow outrageous allegations like these to derail it.
    These past weeks have been hard. The hardest of my life. The night of January 24 was like being hit by a truck! No words can describe the hurt and pain suffered by me and my family. Yet, I find myself overwhelmed by the support for me across this beautiful province of ours. Thank you for believing me and believing in me. Thank you for your outrage at what happened to me.
    I am a fighter. For my family, for my constituents, and for the citizens of Ontario. I will now fight for my name and reputation.

    Like

  55. Miles Lunn says:

    Good discussion. Although I strongly feel Christine Elliott is the best choice, I would have no problem uniting behind a Caroline Mulroney led party. Unfortunately for Doug Ford, I could not endorse one led by him which is why I really hope he doesn’t win as I strongly dislike Wynne and cannot support the NDP. Wouldn’t vote NDP or Liberal if he won, but after watching him on city council, there is way too much baggage with him and I feel if I am going to criticize the other side for being unethical, it would be hypocritical of me to support my side with it, thus I believe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. I also worry that Doug Ford even if he did win would be a one term wonder and severely damage our party long term. It’s not about him being too right wing or the fact he supported Trump. Rather its his constant lying and bullying we saw on city council. Maybe he has matured and learned his lesson and certainly if he won the election and governed well I would be happy to endorse him in 2022, but having lived in Toronto when he was on city council I can tell you he is not someone you want in power. More importantly if you are the Liberal war room producing attack ads, there is so much material. By contrast with Christine Elliott, it would take a lot of work to produce an attack against her and would most likely backfire. In fact I think when it comes to uniting the party she is the best one as I feel if Mulroney wins some Ford supporters will not be on board whereas if Ford wins some Mulroney and to a lesser extent Elliott won’t be onboard.

    By Contrast if Elliott wins she will not only unite the party, she will also be able to win big provincewide. I believe if we choose her we can get above 45% provincewide which is something that rarely happens and can do much better amongst women and university educated voters than even under Brown we could. The good news is I believe Elliott will be most people’s second choices so I think as long as no one wins the first ballot and she can at least come in second, she will win it.

    That being said here would be my suggestion to Christine Elliott since she is friends with the Ford family. She should commission an internal poll and if the results are anything like I suspect they are show them to Doug Ford and make clear to him that if he loves the province and the party it would be in the interest of him not to run. Instead he could drop out and endorse Elliott while in exchange he would still get to run in Etobicoke North (and his local popularity would likely flip this traditionally safe Liberal seat) and if he wins his seat and the PCs form government, he will get to be finance minister as cleaning up waste seems to be his strength. Likewise if he performed well as finance minister he could redeem his image. Jim Flaherty had largely a negative image when he went to Ottawa in 2006, but by the time he died in 2014, he was very well liked and by many even many who didn’t vote Conservative was seen as the best cabinet minister in the Harper government. So this would be a good way for Ford to redeem his image and then he could run for leader at that point.

    Like

  56. Ruth says:

    anyone on Facebook should check out Patrick Brown’s page. It says his column has been shared over 2400 times and lots of good comments on there. The last comment just posted is this……”Seriously folks, we should demand that the party reinstate his leadership”
    Doubt that the party would go for that.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Oh that wouldn’t happen at this point but I do hope Patrick Brown can clear his name in time to stand as a candidate in his riding.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        I hope he does clear his name in time to run in his riding as well. That would mean he was falsely accused and the two involved should be charged for defamation of character at the very least. There has to be an example set, it’s already out of hand. The whole situation reeks IMO, questions remain as to why it came out at the time it did causing such an upheaval.

        As a woman I am fed up with the Me Too movement, it’s on it’s way to having the opposite effect of it’s intent for many strong women and I consider myself to be one. Responsibility rests with women to make the right decisions in any situation where they have choices. I don’t believe there are many who are that naive in this day of what I consider some pretty loose morals across the board.
        Hope no one here is offended by my take on the matter, that’s how I see it.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          With only 116 days left until the election I don’t see how he can clear his name in time as we need a candidate before the writ drops. Yes it is unfortunate, but him running will just hurt our chances in both that riding and provincewide. If the allegations are completely false, he will be redeemed long term and he can always sue the accusers. His political career is probably over but nothing to prevent him from having a very successful career in the private sector. He has a law degree so do not see why he couldn’t be a good lawyer.

          I think metoo movement is a tough one. On the one hand a lot of women have been abused by men and far too often they aren’t listened to so I am glad that things are coming out. Sexual harassment and abuse is unacceptable and those who do it shouldn’t be able to get away with impunity. At the same time there is always the risk some will abuse it to bring down those they don’t like. Want to defeat a male politician you don’t like or get rid of a boss you hate, this becomes a way to do it. So not sure what the best answer is but usually often there tends to be an overreaction and then long term the right balance is found.

          Like

  57. Liz J says:

    Wynne’s Hydro One sale will cost us millions, estimated a 1.8 billion. Not sure how the PC’s will handle that fiasco or how we will be able to afford to keep the lights on and pay the bill. Wynne needs to be taken down but sadly how many business people and ordinary working people will go down with the domino effect.?

    Like

  58. joannebly says:

    Well I just renewed my party membership so that should make the whole process more interesting!

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Great to hear. Have you decided yet who to support or still waiting to hear more? As mentioned my preferred is Christine Elliott. Interestingly enough she has the most caucus endorsements but Caroline Mulroney has the most candidate as well as most federal MP endorsements. FWIW of the Conservative leadership candidates from Ontario, Michael Chong, Chris Alexander and Erin O’Toole have endorsed Christine Elliott while Lisa Raitt has endorsed Caroline Mulroney. Haven’t heard from Kellie Leitch or Pierre Lemieux but considering how controversial both are I wouldn’t be surprised if the candidates would rather not get their endorsements.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        My preference leans towards Christine Elliott. I saw her replying to the same questions the others did when Terry M interviewed her on P&P. She did very well but of course she probably knew which questions were coming based on the earlier interviews of the others.

        I wouldn’t mind it if Caroline Mulroney won either. The main thing is that the leadership candidates need to be very, very careful what they say about each other this close to a general election. That is so important.

        Like

  59. Ruth says:

    this from John Wright….”CTV now reports that accuser of Patrick Brown recounts key piece: she was not underage in bar and not in high school but she “stands by her core story” and CTV stands by their original story. In a court of law this would shred a case. CTV credibility is on very, very thin ice”.

    Like

  60. Liz J says:

    Our long term MPP has come out in support of Caroline Mulroney. I often wonder if it’s a smart idea for a sitting member to do that.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      I think it’s ok for caucus members to announce their preferences as long as they are careful not to malign the other candidates. The party has to come together quickly after the leadership race. It’s going to be a tricky situation that’s for sure.

      Like

  61. joannebly says:

    New post up since this one was getting a bit long in the comment section. 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s